Lord Campbell-Savours: I am concerned about this amendment; it worries me. The noble Earl will know that I have sought to be objective throughout the Bill's proceedings, but he referred to "regard to". The amendment refers specifically to "damage to". I wonder whether the lawyers might make more than a few bob out of this amendment in the event that it is included in the Bill.
	I shall get back to the basics of the amendment in relation to two terms—"wealth" and "the economy". The amendment states that the proposals,
	"must operate so as to avoid so far as is reasonably practicable any risk of damage to ... wealth and"—
	in proposed new paragraph (c)—"the economy".
	Some private property may lose value as we implement a policy on climate change. Certain types of private residences, in comparison with other movements in the housing market, might be at a disadvantage because of the nature of their construction. Certain types of businesses owned by individuals, which would come under the general heading of "wealth", might be affected by the implementation of this policy and would obviously lose out.
	On the wider issue of the economy, what is meant by "economy"? We have many economists among us today and perhaps my noble friend will get up and embroider the case that I make, with his knowledge of economics. As I understand the economy, it is about activity in industry, so what about the power generation industry? It may well lose a lot of business as a result of the inclusion of such an amendment. It may decide that it wants to go to law to prevent the implementation of a particular policy because it damages its interests, citing the inclusion of "economy" in the amendment.
	What about other industries involving building materials, supplies, heating, some white goods or freight transport? They are all part of the national economy and may well argue that they are being damaged, yet the law will protect them if the amendment is included. The law will refer specifically to,
	"damage to, or deterioration of",
	their interests.
	I think that the Opposition have gone a little too far with this amendment, and I hope that the noble Earl will withdraw it.
	I was going to generally support my noble friend's amendment for two reasons, but I am bound to say that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, has raised legitimate concerns about the wording which must be looked at carefully again before the next stage of the Bill. Without elaborating on "the economy", what he said about "wealth" raised a number of issues that need further consideration.
	I looked rather sympathetically at the amendment initially because of proposed new paragraph (b), for much the same reason expressed in an earlier amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, who referred to the Severn barrage. I was not present for that debate; I was in Moscow at the time with the sub-committee of this House, but I raised exactly those issues in the debate on the Queen's Speech. It is a very good example of how, if we are going to go down this road, we have to look carefully at the consequences of biodiversity on ecological systems.
	Equally I am sympathetic to what my noble friend said about the wrong use of biofuels. There are a lot of extremely good examples showing the sensible use of biofuels, notably in Brazil where extraordinary progress has been made using sugar to almost eliminate the need for ordinary sources of motor fuels, and so on. We also see other cases where rain forests and so on are being destroyed.
	There is a lot in the amendment deserving support, and this is one of the many issues raised during today's debate. Important questions have been raised, which we will need to consider carefully on Report. There are good things about the amendment that I wholly support, but one or two matters on the precise wording must be dealt with before we go much further.